Why can’t I just get “Road Traffic Act” insurance for my car?

I hate car insurance but you have to have it, bcause it’s a legal requirement.

Actually you are only required to have Third Party insurance but there’s no profit in that, so Insurance companies don’t offer it.

They still offer the Third Party, Fire and Theft insurance but Comprehensive cover is so much more profitable that it can be cheaper (initial premium) than Third Party, Fire and Theft.
Nowadays, the greed for greater profit has brought in compulsory excess plus voluntary excess, legal cover, breakdown cover, European cover, replacement car cover, windscreen cover, with more to come.
It’s at a point where you are paying a yearly premium that can be more than the Insurance company’s valuation of your car.

Basically the value of a car halves every two years, having dropped by two or three thousand as soon as its driven off the dealer’s forecourt.
This means that an eight-year-old car, costing £20,000,new, can be valued at less than £900.

[I’m surprised that the Environmentalist’s haven’t complained about this built-in obsolescence, which also applies to cars with “green” credentials.]

So an eight-year-old car, which should be perfectly serviceable, considering the original investment, can be valued by Insurance companies at less than your premium plus excesses. I.e. If you get hit by an ininsured driver, your car can be written off, with you not getting a penny.

Getting rid of your car allows them to grab money off you with their “mid-term correction” policy.

Having recently scrapped my old Ford Escort (the MOT is another bug-bear) for £149, I cancelled my insurance on it; it only cost about £26 in “mid-term correction”, however this meant that I would sometimes need to use my wife’s car, when my bus pass was just too inadequate. The extra cost for a “”mid-term correction” on her car was £80 and that was on the same day that her policy re-newed.

It’s true! I really, really resent Insurance Companies, and their political puppets.